Lodown

Refer the internet book, An Introduction to Awareness, James Corrigan.

Indefinite monism stands as reality incoherently flipped in the statement:

“… what is real is distinguished from that which exists by showing that everything that we are conscious of exists but is not real since it is contingent upon awareness for its existence.”

In sheer contrast, objective monism is coherent in the principle that all objects of awareness are objective and therefore real. This includes both the physical and the supernatural from the most obscure to the most common, even gods, devils and other spirit things. Widespread agreement on the pathetic innate rottenness of such mental objects is that they fall short of ideal reality, in other words that they are subjective—and that humans, pathologically characterized as creating them, must be the actual rot—thereby revealing civilization’s narrative as mired in the chronic reciprocal projection of existence dualism.

The true rot is the epistemic incoherence of the facade and dualism of the contrived (intuitive)* measurement and judgment of mental objects, supposedly against the paradoxical chimera of perfect existential versions of such objects—classically in the heavens, or in some other higher authoritarian symbolism. Of course, humans drawn as meekly subject to the authority of the bullshit narrative stand miraculously protected from such a Mafioso finger of threat. They are the real humans. Such narrative runs untrue like any system about to pathetically collapse. It is the corruption of consciousness. It is reality imploding. Chronically measuring existence or sometimes applying the incoherence of existential attributes to narrative coherence is crap. It is the total dissolution of narrative reality. This is why objective monism as the answer is exclusively epistemic. Ontology is utterly and bottomlessly bullshit.

The question may arise whether it takes “us” back to “Plato’s” The Republic.

Plato and us is bullshit. It is existential dualism, part of the bottomless void of incoherent narrative content. Every single philosophy is cluelessness in the presumption of self-existence and agency as philosopher.

There is a single answer because there is a single mistake. The mistake is dualism. The answer is monism. Measuring incoherence is bullshit because it is a total disease. Acute addiction is simply not in remission by half-measures, and that goes for existence dualism as the most monstrous addiction ever to cripple the narrative.

The matter of existence is moot. Existence is indefinable. Civilization worldwide dismally suffers the pathological incoherence of existence dualism. The debate about the degree of existence of the objects of awareness, and thereby about the so-called subjectivity or ignorance of knowers (subjects) of such objects by the incompleteness of knowledge relative to supposed full existential knowledge is the pathology of existence dualism, or the perceptualization of the supernarrative. The conceptualization of the supernatural as existential Truth roots in it.

* The word intuitive is correct, vs. rational. Rational construct stands only with emotional embodiment. It is only by both emotion and reason painfully simultaneously laid down in the bedrock principle of existence dualism that such incoherent bullshit as God is real, in other words He is real in the pathological delusion that things exist (and that He exists) which is the supernarrative that more than narrative is definable.

“System 1 and System 2 are so central to the story I tell in my book that I must make it absolutely clear that they are fictitious characters. Systems 1 and 2 are not systems in the standard sense of entities with interacting aspects or parts. And there is no part of the brain that either of the systems would call home. You may well ask: What is point of introducing fictitious characters with ugly names into a serious book? The answer is that the characters are useful because of some of the quirks of our minds, yours and mine. A sentence is understood more easily if it describes what an agent (System 2) does than if it describes what something is, what properties it has. In other words, “System 2″ is a better subject for a sentence than “mental arithmetic.” The mind—especially System 1—appears to have a special aptitude for the construction and interpretation of stories about active agents, who have personalities, habits and abilities. You quickly formed a bad opinion of the thieving butler, you expect more bad behavior from him, and you will remember it for a while. This is also my hope for the language of systems.”

That is the corruption of systematic narrative also, by personification and anthropomorphism that stands dismally corrupted through thousands of years of organized personal developmental delusion.

It is a very difficult investigation and experiment to grasp only because it literally is the systematic dissolution of the deepest, most sacred delusions of pathological civilized reality: those based on existential and volitional personal identity.

Character judgment by definition draws ever further away from a simple answer universally understandable as true. Civilization worldwide is a dismally delusional multiple personality society, a kind of collectivized schizophrenia by which the destruction of nature continues to prove to be inevitable.

It is indeed a society of mutual psychological projection (of guilt) pathetically dressed up in farcically contrived empathy, even within persons by way of multiple role playing. So, of course whether disagreement is reasonable criticism of society as mental pathology or desperately painful reaction against it—by instant projection it stands bluntly accused as some variation of individual schizophrenia.

Narrative framed as negotiation between persons pragmatically, implicitly, subjectively and subliminally draws attention to blindly perform in the monkey arena of systematic personal character attribution. The reason for the experiment’s denial to discuss “the issues” is that the framing of personal opinions agreeing to agree and disagree in the establishment of individual personality is the mother of all stupidity. The highest wisdom of such pathological addiction is the most idiotic stupidity.

White-lite enlightenment is no wisdom. It is the peak of delusion.

The problem of overcoming the junkie addiction of philosophical consciousness-existence dualism is the intoxicating ambivalence of the TACIT sublime and the EXPLICIT spectacle in sharp juxtaposition. The tacit holiness of volitional self existence, validated by the presumed volition and existence of God and other spirits, frames highly ritualized junkie delusions of newly explicitly projected character judgment bristling with novel sensations in a hierarchical progression of ever more blindly idiotic fixes in delusion of self-development. Hence, the disintegration of consciousness (noosphere), as reflected in the collapse of nature (biosphere).

Skill is not a quality of your existence or any existence. It is not your skill or the skill of your assumed group. It is an element of the consciousness narrative. You do not exist at all in any normalized meaning of the word existence.

The real danger that may emerge here is to think that personal identity is to not exist. The point is civilization’s whole self-identity orientation is throw-back simian pathology. Healthy consciousness is not about what “we” individually or collectively existentially are, even in the conclusion that it is incoherent to think that we do not exist in the conventional sense. It is about the health or coherence of consciousness narrative.

There is still the problem of healthy consciousness not fitting in a pathological landscape, so for now it is necessary to play the game. How to play the game temporarily as actor and audience of the spectacle of civilization?

See Your Brain at Work: Strategies for Overcoming Distraction, Regaining Focus, and Working Smarter All Day Long — David Rock

This is an outstanding book on how to play the game temporarily as both actor and audience of the pathological spectacle of civilization constructed in the delusional existence dualism of volitional selves. Of course the book is not of the “opinion” that the game is psychotic, which is why its instruction works for now.

This book will be referenced repeatedly as an excellent interim “individual survival tool” to demonstrate that the investigation cannot intend to be in any way subversive and indeed cannot be subversive, since decision making or control is impossible. Also, intention of authoritarianism is impossible.

The investigation reflects critical awareness of exactly the error of the pervasive normalized notion of control central to the bedrock narrative structure of normal civilization worldwide, nearly without exception—or the belief that consciousness represents existence and that volitional individuals and groups exist. The permanent spontaneous discrediting and abandonment of that error will be an improvement of consciousness narrative beyond current imagination.

“A concluding chapter explores, in reverse order, the implications of three distinctions drawn in the book: between the experiencing and the remembering selves, between the conception of agents in classical economics and in behavioral economics (which borrows from psychology), and between the automatic System 1 and the effortful System 2.” p.14, Thinking, Fast and Slow—Daniel Kahneman

The investigation’s exploratory thoughts are unintelligible to the normalized instinct that concepts opportunistically signify existence. It defies civilization’s junkie dualism. It escapes the intoxicated kaleiscopic jumble of frames farcically shifting across the dualistic consciousness-existence spectrum. The truth is that the concept “consciousness” cannot refer to existential entity. This means that no part of the universe or the whole universe is consciousness-as-observer. The universe is consciousness as sense data. The notion of explicit qualia is literally nonsense. The question is whether even the notion of a unity quale is coherent.

Qualia differ from person to person which would suggest that consciousness is extrapolated differently to each self. This debunks Chopra’s supernatural claims of one consciousness of which we humans stem.—Naj

Tacit knowledge is to explicit knowledge as potential energy is to energy. Explicit and tacit knowledge realize only in mutual synthesis, where tacit knowledge is by definition implicit or undefined. Similarly, consciousness and potential consciousness realize completely in mutual synthesis, with potential consciousness definable only as unity, or explicity undefined and indefinable.

On this evidence, the thought that existence is indefinable, and that symbolic knowing is incoherent with “existence” taken as the normalized reality—in coherent symbolic knowing, “potential consciousness” replaces “existence” as the normalized reality. Potential consciousness somehow under girds the narrative with no more explicit wisdom or enlightenment than potential energy under girding energy. Only experience-based training mentors tacit knowledge. Potential consciousness is the indefinable unity bedrock of explicit narrative consciousness.

Well rounded feelings, emotions, and sensations are as much sense data as hard percepts and concepts. They do not signify existence or consciousness potential in any way but unity.

Wisdom constructed on material existence or consciousness as existence is bullshit. This stands in the context of the junkie incoherence of presuming to know variation of material existence or consciousness-as-existence, as implied by the previous paragraph. It does not mean that coherent consciousness excludes these potentiality concepts as unity labels. Potentials are indefinable abstracts. Consciousness is simply NOT about how or why patterns form. It is about which patterns are coherent. Presuming to know fundamentals of how and why expert tacit knowledge exists, is incoherent dualism and pathological existential fundamentalism. Instead, the coherent matter of the coherence of patterns is that it cuts across levels of conceptual calculus as movement and change. Coherent consciousness (by definition explicit) does not begin to resolve unity existence or unity potential consciousness, never mind the individual existence of volitional selves or gods.

re. Blog post, Nomenon.

The new word ‘nomenon’ is rejection of the topographical space of ‘noumena’ as the doublespeak by which phony existence invokes. ‘Nomenon’ stands in the place of ‘phenomenon’, contracting reality to consciousness narrative sense data.

Any part of the current incoherent narrative gains sacredly durable existential status as more than consciousness, while it is no such thing. This applies most obviously to the physical but it is also how God and other non-physical abstraction are easily attributed the most sacred existential status in desperately opportunistic validation of the increasingly tenuous existential status of the physical, especially, and most acutely, the existence of volitional personal self-identity.

Note well the idea of existence or potential consciousness as self-labeling. Via the usual delusional homuncular invocation of existence and discreteness miraculously outside, above and beyond consciousness, it seems like valid personification or doing itself, so it must be self-organizing, as if shifting responsibility to some dynamic Invisible Cosmic Directive (Creation or Kharma), often indicative of God and in validation of personal self-identity. The only coherence is that narrative and narrator are invariably the same. There is no agent other than narrative implicit in the very stuff of everything. However the personification is the error. There is by definition no narrator other than literally “the labels” of narrative, and labels are not narrators, but narrative! It is in that unmitigated monistic sense that it is coherent to state that nomena narrate. Invocation of agency and evocation of gods as if somehow standing apart from narrative are the same psychotic dualism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacit_knowledge#Transmission_Models_for_Tacit_knowledge

A chief practice of technological development is the codification of tacit knowledge into explicit programmed operations so that processes previously requiring skilled employees can be automated for greater efficiency and consistency at lower cost. Such codification involves mechanically replicating the performance of persons who possess relevant tacit knowledge; in doing so, however, the ability of the skilled practitioner to innovate and adapt to unforeseen circumstances based on the tacit “feel” of the situation is often lost. The technical remedy is to attempt to substitute brute-force methods capitalizing on the computing power of a system, such as those that enable a supercomputer programmed to “play” chess against a grandmaster whose tacit knowledge of the game is broad and deep.

The conflicts demonstrated in the previous two paragraphs are reflected in Ikujiro Nonaka’s model of organizational knowledge creation, in which he proposes that tacit knowledge can be converted to explicit knowledge. In that model tacit knowledge is presented variously as uncodifiable (“tacit aspects of knowledge are those that cannot be codified”) and codifiable (“transforming tacit knowledge into explicit knowledge is known as codification”). This ambiguity is common in the knowledge management literature.

Nonaka’s view may be contrasted with Polanyi’s original view of “tacit knowing.” Polanyi believed that while declarative knowledge may be needed for acquiring skills, it is unnecessary for using those skills once the novice becomes an expert. And indeed, it does seem to be the case that, as Polanyi argued, when we acquire a skill we acquire a corresponding understanding that defies articulation.

This is the idiocy of civilization. It is why “a good sense of humor” is so pathetic. It covers up infinite stupidity. It facilitates brute-force gluttonous spectacle in junkie-psychotic shorthand of established narrative. The stone dumb practice of explicit reorganization of subliminal potentials in derivation of ever newer, bigger sensation is the atrocity.

re. above quote, “And indeed, it does seem to be the case that, as Polanyi argued, when we acquire a skill we acquire a corresponding understanding that defies articulation.”

Habitual articulation of skills eventually replacing them, stage after stage of so-called maturity and enlightenment, is the narrative bullshit.

The new word ‘nomenon’ is rejection of the topographical space of ‘noumena’ as the doublespeak by which phony existence invokes. ‘Nomenon’ stands in the place of ‘phenomenon’, contracting reality to consciousness narrative sense data.

Any part of the current incoherent narrative gains sacredly durable existential status as more than consciousness, while it is no such thing. This applies most obviously to the physical but it is also how God and other non-physical abstraction are easily attributed the most sacred existential status in desperately opportunistic validation of the increasingly tenuous existential status of the physical, especially, and most acutely, the existence of volitional personal self-identity.

re. noumenon at wikipedia

Civilization’s consciousness as existential volitional self identities and communication between them as persons is “violently” incoherent because existence is in fact indefinable. Self identity is indefinable. To understand primal consciousness as strange emotional phenomena of narrative STRICTLY AS IF they intimately animate is coherent. The agreement that negotiations of intentional actions between individuals represent existence, is dismally incoherent, and the precipitous dissolution of consciousness.

Consciousness is epinomenal* of unity existence, but it is not existence or does not discretely represent or reference existence. I and you do not exist (as persons). Therefore I and you are existence, utterly without means to define how or why that is, or how to existentially differentiate between us. (Existential) self identity is indefinable.

* “Epinomenal” because the concept of multiple “noumena” to which phenomena relate, is literally nonsense. The sensory experience literally does not reflect such things.

Consciousness/existence dualism is the delusional INDIVIDUAL development of incrementally more mature or enlightened denial that the sense data of consciousness is only consciousness sense data. It is the primal-historical co-emotional framework that the PHYSICAL category of experience is existence.

The health of consciousness is simply about degrees of coherence or incoherence. It is sense data. It cannot do anything. Physical bodies do not exert force on each other, because they do not exist. They are sense data.

From The Disease of Force and Existence

“Forces do not exist. Force phenomena only appear mysterious, or require forces to account for them, when those phenomena are explored through a lens of axiomatic tenuity. As Arthur Eddington pointed out, there would be no need to conjure up forces if our expectations sprang from the natural geometry of spacetime. All effects would be internal to the system – natural and expected consequences of how spacetime is structured.” — Thad Roberts

The invocation of existence as significantly described by consciousness is utterly tenuous. The closest existential solution is infinite resolution potential consciousness, not as resolving existence in the least, but merely as unity indicative of it.

Civilization’s pathology is not so-called base human animal nature but a symbolic consciousness massively in denial that it is incompatible with the pervasive perpetuation of early-language shaman animal narrative and human animal narrative drawn as intimately responsible existential action.

To illustrate the extent of the current pathological delusion of physical and so-called supernatural consciousness sense data invoked as existence—at the scale of infinity anything finite is infinitesimal, in other words relative to consciousness potential, the actual narrative approaches zero.

Infinite consciousness potential is unity indicative of existence. Actual consciousness narrative does not begin to broach it.

“To be clear, mathematical expressions of forces can enable accurate representations of how systems in the universe evolve, but they cannot give us insight as to why they evolve that way. They do not offer an intuitive source for, or explanation of, those force phenomena. Forces are just magic tricks that distract us from learning Nature’s secrets. With the full causal story the magic would dissolve and forces would disappear.” — Thad Roberts

The problem is that once higher resolution data has been realized and organized, it is just how, and yet higher resolution potential data is why. Coherent consciousness is not concerned about why, how or what. It is concerned about cognitive coherence. Furthermore, space time are but four dimensions of the consciousness narrative. Every conceivable variable is another dimension.

It does not matter how much elements of mental experience stand imbued with and embodied by the incoherent narrative of co-authoring emotion as existence, it remains data.

“Forces do not exist. Force phenomena only appear mysterious, or require forces to account for them, when those phenomena are explored through a lens of axiomatic tenuity. As Arthur Eddington pointed out, there would be no need to conjure up forces if our expectations sprang from the natural geometry of spacetime. All effects would be internal to the system – natural and expected consequences of how spacetime is structured.” — Thad Roberts

The invocation of existence as significantly described by consciousness is utterly tenuous. The closest existential solution is infinite resolution potential consciousness, not as resolving existence in the least, but merely as unity indicative of it.

True bedrock reality is not something like God, with super holy volitional self (in hyper rationalization of the psychosis of volitional self). It is indefinable existence which is the simple fact that existence is indefinable by the definition that consciousness is sense data, and not existence.

Coherent consciousness narrative defines individual death as dissipation of some of the deterministic subject matter of the narrative. This does not mean that individual survival is suddenly irrelevant. Quite the opposite. Consciousness sense data for the first time released from the pathological hocus pocus of standing as existence is coherent because it can attend to individual survival without homuncular dualism, ambivalence and paradox.

The notion that thoughts are harmless vs. the real kinetic impact of the physical as so-called action is untrue. It is the delusional error of depicting what happens (“what we do”) as exclusively real, and thoughts (“what we think”) as exclusively virtual. It is the devastating facilitation and normalization of the proliferation of pathologically delusional ideas.

What is true is that all sense data is the same virtual substance, therefore in coherent consciousness the claim that individual existence is virtual does not stand in contrast to the reality of physical existence. Consciousness sense data includes the physical as pure narrative, and not as existence.

The notion of control is incoherent. It is the collapse of consciousness.

Pre-symbolic animal consciousness does not include the concept of existence, so it is not pathology (yet). Pathology is when primal sensation becomes distorted as volitional animation of selves, who are then seduced and tamed (by or as authoritarian “care-giving” narrative FROM BIRTH) to agree at the pain of retribution or maiming to co-author that some of consciousness is intentionally acting individual existence or a matter of individuals empathetically co-regulating the action.

To view pre-symbolic consciousness as animals who punish each other, or even to view it primarily at the level of natural selection, or even as quantum-resolution storm, are all varieties of anthropomorphism and personification framed by the error of agents applying force, or pseudo teleological wave-action.

Pre-symbolic consciousness does not tell the story of personal retribution. That narrative is pure sensation, without reconsideration.

In the conventional incoherent language of discrete agency, watching someone or something else do something is very significantly as if you are doing it yourself, down to muscle fiber stimulation. Even imagining such action, including imagining your own action, has the same dynamics.

Is everything ventriloquised in anthropomorphic form? Is sense data accumulated different from the physical form?

Yes, fiction or imagination differs from so-called physical reality similar to the way ventriloquism differs from speech in that it is simpler, caricature-like and entertaining. Note that mirth and pain are closely related and conflated in the hypothesis that existence and volition are incoherent elements of symbolic narrative .

{Going through the motions in the mind before a difficult physical challenge helps because it readies the whole performance, including the physical body fiber and deeper. Negative thoughts in mental preparation are not good, all the way down.}

Reflective or symbolic consciousness means extensive superimposition of a looser, quicker narrative in tight association with and transformation of primal reality narrative, like the evolution of genetics and organism. Both cut across all levels of infinite resolution potential consciousness.

The transformation of REALITY will be spontaneous, worldwide and at every level at once. This is not for self-help of individual or group. It addresses the pathological noosphere, which includes the collapse of the biosphere as primal physical perception. Narrative that nature exists is pathological. Narrative that it is consciousness narrative is healthy The grave illness of nature is symptomatic of the illness of consciousness as a whole by the presumption that consciousness exists as self-identities with free volition in environments that exist.

This is not how-to think, do and be instruction. It is about all of consciousness-as-narrative at once. It is preparation for total transformation.

Again, this does not mean existence does not exist, but that 1) existence and 2) agency of observation and action are indefinable and 3) whether (1) and (2) are equivalent is indefinable.